SYBIL AUSTIN, PETITIONER,
v.
BARNETT BANK OF SOUTH FLORIDA, N.A., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the untimeliness of an objection does not waive privilege if the objection is based on privilege. A trial court must conduct an in camera inspection when privilege is claimed.
[1] A claim of privilege is not subject to the requirement of timely objection under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(d).
[2] The omission of "privilege" from Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) indicates that rule 1.380(d)'s proscription against untimely objections does not apply to privil…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner sought certiorari review of a trial court order compelling the production of documents claimed to be privileged. The trial court based its …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Privileged Information cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Chief Judge.
Petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order compelling the production of documents claimed to be privileged. The trial court’s order was based, at least in part, on the fact that petitioner’s assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was untimely. We grant the petition for writ of certiorari.
As we interpret rule 1.380(d), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, its proscription that “[t]he failure to act described in this subdivision may not be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has applied for a protective order as provided by Rule 1.280(c)” does not apply where the matters sought to be discovered are claimed to be privileged. This follows from the fact that rule 1.280(c) refers to issuance of a protective order only “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense_” and does not refer to privilege. We think the omission was intentional and that the word “objectionable” in rule 1.380(d) therefore should be construed as referring only to items which are within the scope of discovery; that is, not privileged (see Insurance Co. of North America v. Noya, 398 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)), but to which objection is made for one of the reasons set forth in rule 1.280(c). Thus rule 1.380(d) does not require timely objection to privileged matters. See Gross v. Security Trust Co., 462 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We certify direct conflict with American Funding, Limited v. Hill, 402 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), on this issue.
Where a claim of privilege is asserted, the trial court should hold an in camera inspection to review the discovery requested and determine whether assertion of the privilege is valid. Gross, 462 So. 2d at 581; see also Meek v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 458 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Co., 436 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We therefore grant the petition and quash the order under review.
CERTIORARÍ GRANTED.
DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Am. Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Cruz, 761 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…on and remanding to trial court with instructions to conduct an in camera inspection of the manual in question or alternatively an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the manual is a trade secret); Austin v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A., 472 So. 2d 830, 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)(“Where a claim of privilege is asserted, the trial court should hold an in camera inspection to review the discovery requested and determine whether assertion of the privilege is valid.”). In Beck v. Dumas, 709 So. 2d 601 (…
-
Snyder v. Value Rent-A-Car, 736 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…d attorney-client privileges are asserted, the trial court must hold an in-camera inspection of the discovery material at issue in order to rule on the applicability of the privilege. Id. at 358 (citing Austin v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A., 472 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)). If at the conclusion of the in-camera inspection, the trial court determines that the diary contains work product, then respondent would have the burden of demonstrating in the trial court the elements of need and inability wi…
-
Lovell Farms, Inc. v. Levy, 641 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…tat. (1991); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(c)(7). The court may conduct an in camera inspection to review whether the employer’s information constitutes a trade secret. See Kavanaugh v. Stump, 592 So. 2d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Austin v. Barnett Bank, 472 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Scientific Games, Inc. v. Dittler Bros., Inc., 586 So. 2d 1128, 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Furthermore, a protective order can be sought in advance of the release of any documents. Showa Denko America, Inc. v. Hopkins, 586 So. 2d…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- DeLISI v. Bankers Ins. Co., 436 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Noya, 398 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Gross v. Sec. Tr. Co., 462 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Am. Funding v. Ira Hill, Jr., 402 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Wrobleski v. Lottie Wrobleski, 458 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Meek v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 458 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)